Refi
+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 1
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 13666
Total Topics: 269
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 0
Total: 1

Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 365 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 23, 2018, 11:09:11 pm »

What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy - Vol. I (Our Created Solar System)

224,924 views


Daniel Skupien

Published on Mar 26, 2017

http://www.creationastronomy.com/

"Our Created Solar System” reveals what you aren't being told by the secular media.

In this video, you'll tour our magnificent Solar System. You'll visit each planet through more than 200 beautiful photographs and graphics from NASA and other sources. You will see how each planet uniquely testifies of its Creator.

Your host is Spike Psarris, a former engineer in the U.S. military space program. He entered that program as an atheist and left it as a creationist and a Christian. 🕊
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 21, 2017, 01:57:40 pm »


Agelbert NOTE:Though it doesn't specifically say it, this video provides more evidence for a young Titan (i.e. Maximum age of in the millions of years, not billions of years  see previous post on this thread) This entertaining video provides some hard scientific facts about Titan (Earth like atmospheric pressure despite low gravity, 98% nitrogen atmosphere, THICKER atmosphere than earth - that WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST if this moon was billions of years old, size comparisons, etc.):


Swimming in Titan's Lakes

Dreksler

Published on May 19, 2017

Titan, moon of Saturn, and is the second largest moon in the Solar System. It has an atmosphere, alive surface and seas and lakes made out of liquid methane and ethane. So then, what would swimming in these lakes be like? Watch the video to find out.

Music: Kevin MacLeod - Ritual
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 21, 2017, 01:25:12 pm »

Titan's surface and atmosphere: Possible ONLY if our solar system is over 4 BILLION of years YOUNGER.

Published on Jan 14, 2015

For the probe landing’s 10th anniversary, a new sequence has been rendered from Huygens’ Descent Imager/Spectral Radiometer (DISR) data. The craft landed on Saturn’s largest moon on 14 Jan 2005. -- Landing Animation: http://goo.gl/6t6XuA

Credit: Erich Karkoschka, DISR team, University of Arizona


Agelbert NOTE:
Why is Titan's surface and atmosphere an embarrassment for the scientists who believe our solar system is 4.6 billion years old? 

SEE BELOW: ;D

How Do We Know Our Solar System Is Young?

SNIPPET:


Quote
Posted on February 6, 2012

One of the most accepted hypothesis or theories in evolutionary science claim our solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago. Many theories have been built around this assumption in order to make predictions of what is out there in space. On the other hand, the Biblical account implies a much younger solar system. Is there evidence for a young solar system? The answer is, “yes!” Evolutionary scientists call it a mystery while creation scientists call it a confirmation.

The old age framework claims an accretion disk appeared which gravity used to flatten into a spinning disk.  From this disk over millions of years they claim, gravity caused planets to form and other objects. Once it reached a certain level or point, the excess gas and dust dissipated and cleared away, leaving the solar system as we observe it today.


Proto-solar solar system accretion disk according to evolutionary theory

The disk, also known as a nebula, then becomes the source from which everything in our solar system was formed. However as science advances, evidence for a young solar system has been causing problems with this hypothesis.  Chemical-change is a good indicator on how old an object is. The Cassini mission with its probe has been one of the amazing tools for discovering what is going on in our solar system!

For one thing, Scientists who have been modelling Titan’s atmosphere have made calculations using old-age assumptions concluded that no methane should be present on Titan rather it should have been used up in the first tens of millions of years of the moon’s history. There is some replenishment going on with the methane which is evaporating off Titan’s surface but not enough to account for the amount detected by the Cassini probe.  There is a lot of chemical-changing activity going on which is why evolutionary scientists were surprised to find so much methane on Titan. Also, methane escaping Titan’s thick atmosphere into space lowers the ten million year range as well.

Read about more embarrassments for the  true believers in the solar system accretion disk theory at link:   
 
https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/how-do-we-know-our-solar-system-is-young/
 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 06, 2017, 02:04:19 pm »

From a discussion of ego on another forum

Why do so many Diners seem to place such a high value on "egolessness"?  ???  :icon_scratch:  Does being egoless somehow make you a better person than someone who has an ego?  Are you closer to perfection as a Homo Sap if you are egoless?

Moreover, WHY would you WANT to be egoless?  That's like wanting to go outside not wearing your underwear.  I certainly would not want to live in a world full of egoless people.  What would you talk with them about?

RE

Probably because every single problem or predicament faced by humanity can be traced back to our pride and ego (using the word to mean "a person's sense of self-importance").  If you want to solve the problems you have to deal with their roots.   

Ego certainly provides for "a person's sense of self-importance," but it is more then just that.  I would say that ego is like the mental body.  It is made very real by the mistake we make of allowing it to be real, to be taken seriously. 

However, it's also a necessary thing to have if you are going to be of the world.  If you are going to renounce the world, and live in a monastery, or in a cave in the wilderness, then you no longer need an ego.  In fact, going to a monastery is very much about giving yourself the ability to live without ego.  At least as close to that state as you can get. 

What is personality if not the things our ego has attached to and made into self?  Our preferences and distastes are all made possible by the process of attachment.  Which is why, in Buddhist philosophy, attachment is the fundamental problem.  It's the root cause of all suffering.  It's akin to the concept of original sin in Christianity.  To not be attached to anything is to be egoless.  That includes opinions and preferences.  I'm not the Buddhist monk on the Diner though...Knarf is, and I'm glad he's still here.  I have much respect for his way of life. 

I got distracted on my way to fetch the water.   :laugh:

Well if we make the "ego" equivalent to our identity as personal beings and the sense of selfhood, then I would agree with RE that there's nothing wrong with ego. I don't believe the world is something to be detached from, but rather something to be revered, maintained and taken in with gracious hearts. To do this, we must have opinions and make judgments on ourselves and others.

In most Christian theology our selfhood is real and important, but our fundamental sin is thinking and behaving in a way that places more importance on one's own self than on God or other "selfs". There is no way to avoid this completely in a fallen state, but we should certainly recognize it and do what we can to tip the scales.


DW, The only entropy a human can undergo is decomposing after death. Homeostatic pressure of the ego is its desperation for self preservation. The neurological state of meditation is slow wave activity. The mechanism is your whole parasympathetic nervous system. The mechanism for thinking is your brain. That it is the same thing used for ego is similar to the fact that the same hand can build things or break things.

1 Corinthians 1 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

Quote
18 The teaching about the cross seems foolish to those who are lost. But to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

19 As the Scriptures say, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise.  I will confuse the understanding of the intelligent.”

20 So what does this say about the philosopher, the law expert, or anyone in this world who is skilled in making clever arguments? God has made the wisdom of the world look foolish.

21 This is what God in his wisdom decided: Since the world did not find him through its own wisdom, he used the message that sounds foolish to save those who believe it.

22 The Jews ask for miraculous signs, and the Greeks want wisdom. 23 But this is the message we tell everyone: Christ was killed on a cross. This message is a problem for Jews, and to other people it is nonsense.

Agelbert NOTE: There sure are a lot of "Greeks" at the above forum.  :(
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 04, 2017, 09:29:14 pm »

Deepest Hole Ever Drilled In The History Of Man - what they discovered will shock you   


Published on Jun 30, 2017

It has been said that the human race knows more about certain distant galaxies than it does about the ground that lies beneath its very feet. In fact, while it took the famous Voyager 1 satellite 26 years to exit our Solar System (relaying measurements to Earth from 16.5 billion km away), it took about the same amount of time for humanity to penetrate a mere 12 km into the Earth’s surface.

Category: People & Blogs
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 04, 2017, 05:16:15 pm »

Our Created Solar System - What You Aren't Being Told


Published on Feb 9, 2013

What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy Volume 1

SUBSCRIBE → http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

Did You Know...

The best evolutionary models say that many of the planets in our solar system should not exist. Yet there they are.   ;D

Did God create our Solar System less than 10,000 years ago, as the Bible says? Or did it form all by itself from a cloud of gas 4,600,000,000 years ago, as secular astronomers claim? Which account of history is true? ???

Recent discoveries in space has supported the Biblical account. Each planet in our Solar System defies the evolutionary model in multiple ways.

Many of the planets and moons appear to be young, not billions of years old. Plus, these objects show evidence of design, not random processes.

In this video, you will tour our magnificent Solar System, and explore these wonders in the heavens. Along the way, you will visit each of the planets and many of their moons, through more than 230 breath-taking photographs and graphics from NASA and other sources. You will see how each planet uniquely testifies of its Creator.

Discover what you aren't being told about our Solar System!
ABOUT: Spike Psarris was previously an engineer in the United States’ military space program. He entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist. He left it as a creationist and a Christian.

http://www.creationastronomy.com

Category: Science & Technology

License: Standard YouTube License
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 13, 2017, 10:01:41 pm »

Free audiobook "Chronicles of Narnia" by C.S. Lewis
Read by an English lady in a way that makes you feel you are part of the adventures of some English children. 


http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/series/the_chronicles_of_narnia   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 13, 2017, 09:47:42 pm »


I really wish I knew the real story. Douglas Adams writes very much in the style of C.S. Lewis, and having read and enjoyed both of them, I have to wonder how that happened. If you know much about C.S. Lewis the man, you might agree that there seems to be a whole lot of irony there.

Since they're both dead now, I'm not sure who to ask.

If you really want to know how C. S. Lewis thought, you need to properly understand and interpret what he meant when one of his characters in the Chronicles of Narnia said following:

Quote
"It's all Plato".


Thank you AG. I found this, which seems to shed some light on Lewis's deepest beliefs.

In The Last Battle, C.S. Lewis brings his Narnian tale to an end. The forces of good and evil come to a head, and Aslan ushers in the end of Narnia and the beginning of eternity. Toward the end of the book, the old Narnia has ended and the faithful have entered through a magical door into Aslan’s land. As they explore this new world, they notice that it looks a lot like the old Narnia, just better—richer, purer, more real, untainted by evil, eternal.
And Lord Digory, who had been present during the creation of Narnia (another wonderful tale found in The Magician’s Nephew), blurts out:
It’s all in Plato, all in Plato: bless me, what do they teach them at these schools!

Granted, Lewis is writing fiction here, but what deeper truth about eternity is he pointing to? I think it is this. When this age has passed, and God redeems and restores all of creation, the faithful will finally experience life the way it is supposed to be. In a sense, our experience will seem more real, because it will be untainted by sin and misery. In eternity, the faithful will experience intimacy with God and harmony with each other as we worship, serve, and explore for eternity the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1).
This is the great hope of Christianity—that this world is not the end of the story for those who know Christ, rather it is just the beginning. Lewis ends the book with this:
. . . it was only the beginning of the real story. All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only been the cover and the title page: now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story which no one on earth has read: which goes on forever: in which every chapter is better than the one before.



He believed that heaven was just like earth,  but harmonious, perfected and infinitely sustainable through the power of God. Earth as it should be, if humans weren't always screwing it up. I can see the attraction to that kind of mythos. Highly intelligent people are more aware of how screwed up the world is, and they need to find a way to make sense of it. It must have been very comforting to have this faith that all the bad stuff would be fixed.

Just like it's very easy for doomers to get very depressed these days, as we watch civilization start to come apart at the seams. Most of us need something to give us some comfort. I take comfort in believing that each of us is on a journey of learning and spiritually maturing and developing through many lifetimes, and that we aren't under pressure to get everything worked out in this one.

Not to get too far off into any kind of potential argument. thank you for the reference. I enjoyed the lesson.



You are most welcome. And thank you for your research. C. S. Lewis rocks!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 25, 2017, 09:44:35 pm »

Irrefutable Scientific Evidence a Creator
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 27, 2015, 03:00:41 pm »


The Chandelier Drive Thru Sequoia Tree is 315 feet tall, 21 feet wide and about 2,400 years old :o.

It is still alive, despite the hole STUPIDLY  cut through this majestic life form.


ABSOLUTE DATING MEHTODS   

Also known as chronometric dating
1.Until c.1900, all dating depended on historical methods
i.e. connections with chronologies and calendars established by people in written documents


Chronologies
◦Romans dated in terms of Consuls and Emperors and AUC
◦Greeks reckoned from Olympic Games, started in 776BC
◦Egyptians reckoned in terms of successive Kings and Dynasties

Calendars
◦E.g. Mayan calendar, giving great precision for Classics Period (AD 300 - 900)

2. Historical chronology is easy to use, when lots of artefacts are found related to it, often carrying the date on them e.g. coins

3. To date a coin or any artefact is not the same thing as to date the context in which it is found

◦Date of coin = year it was made
◦(sealed) deposit can be no earlier than date on the coin but could be later
◦coin gives a TERMINUS POST QUEM = a date after which the deposit may have been lain down

4. Cross Dating
◦The use of exports and imports to extend chronological linkages
◦E.g. Aegean pottery turning up in a well-dated Egyptian context
◦Gives a TERMINUS ANTE QUEM = a date before which the deposit may have been lain down
◦Or Egyptian objects turning up on Aegean sites
◦Still only a rough guide to absolute dating; nowadays superseded by scientifically based methods
 

Tree Ring Dating - Dendrochronology 

 
◦Used in Europe since 1930s
◦Computerised since 1960s

Uses

1. To calibrate or correct radiocarbon dates
Agelbert NOTE: It is now being used to calibrate ice core dates too. 
The mystery of the offset chronologies: Tree rings and the volcanic record of the 1st millennium

2. An independent dating method in its own right


3. Its precision can document the founding, expansion and usage of a settlement

Method

1. New ring of wood produced each year

2. Thickness varies with · fluctuations in climate · age of the tree (rings become narrower with increasing age)

3. Trees of same species, from same area show same pattern of rings, \ · growth sequence can be matched between successively older timbers to build up a chronology for an area

4. Not necessary to cut tree down - a sample can be bored 

5. Match sequence of growth rings in living and old timbers to give chronology for several thousands of years

6. A tree ring sequence of e.g. 100 years is matched with 100 year sequence in master sequence - to give felling date of that timber to within one year

7.Long Master Sequences have been established, against which to check and calibrate radiocarbon dates   

Limitations of Dendrochronology

◾Not a worldwide method of dating because it cannot be applied to the tropics where there are no clearly defined annual rings

◾It is restricted to wood for which there is a master sequence - some local chronologies remain "floating" i.e. cannot be tied into a master sequence

◾The date found is the date of felling , not the date when it became part of any structure, so it may be earlier or later than the structure of which it is a part
 

Radiocarbon Dating
 
1. ◦The work of Willard Libby, in 1949
◦Single most important method of dating for last 50,000 years
◦Has inaccuracies, sometimes caused by archaeologist

Theory:

Cosmic radiation bombards atmosphere
 
Creates high energy neutrons
 
neutrons react with nitrogen in the atmosphere

Creates radiocarbon i.e. carbon14 isotope which is unstable (has 8 neutrons in nucleus, not regular 12 of carbon12)
 
radioactive decay at known rate: 5568 years = 1/2 the carbon14 in any sample to decay
 
◦So, compare the "constant" background radiation level (flawed because it is variable over time) with sample to be dated

◦Background radiation: 75 disintegrations per minute

◦Sample: 371/2 disintegrations gives age of 5730 years

◦Calculate the age of dead plant or animal by how much radiocarbon is left in the sample

◦Samples may be of charcoal, wood, seeds, human or animal bones

Disintegration: each atom decays by releasing beta particles, emissions are counted by a Geiger counter

2. Uncertainty of measurement
◦Counting of emissions is open to error
◦Background atmospheric radiation varies in its concentration of 14C due to change in the Earth's magnetic field

3. Accelerator Mass Spectometry
◦Since 1980s, special gas counters, take very small samples
◦Counts 14C atoms directly, disregarding their radioactivity

4. Calibration of Radiocarbon dates

◦Needed, to account for variation in concentration of 14C due to change in the Earth's magnetic field
◦Tree ring dating corrects this
◦Shows radiocarbon dates before 100BC are increasingly too young
Pushing back of these dates = "Second Radiocarbon Revolution"   :o

Agelbert NOTE: Please take the above (including the scientific community ass-u-me type assumption that the corrected dates MUST be older - LOL!) into account when some "science" article claims the sample is "irrefutably" dated by carbon-14. 


Potassium - Argon Dating
 
•works on the principle of radioactive decay

•Potassium is abundant throughout minerals in the Earth's crust
K-AR method

•Used by geologists to date rocks hundreds/thousands/millions of years old

•Therefore, appropriate for dating early human sites (up to 5 million years old, especially E. African)

•Technique is restricted to volcanic rock no more recent than 100,000yrs

•Based on radioactive decay

 Radioactive isotope
     
 
decays to  inert gas     
 
Decay rate;

Half life = c. 1.3 billion year
◾A measure of the quantity of argon40 trapped within 10gr rock sample gives an estimate of the date of the rock's formation

◾ The less of argon40 there is, the more recent was the formation of the material involved.

Limiting factors ◾Error estimate can be as much as 30,000 years (but still only 2% of the total age…)

◾Can only be used to date sites buried by volcanic rock
◾Can also use pumice in laser-fusion argon-argon dating ◾More sensitive and needs smaller sample
◾Has been used on Vesuvius

Thermoluminescence - TL clock
 

•One of 3 methods depending on amount of radiation received by the specimen to date, NOT the radiation emitted by it

•Only used for dating crystalline materials (minerals)

•Analyses behaviour of electrons within a crystal when exposed to radiation

•They absorb energy and become trapped in lattice defects

•Can date POTTERY (unlike radiocarbon)-the most abundant inorganic material on archaeological site of last 10,00 years

•But poorer precision than radiocarbon

POT

•Made of clay, containing "high" level of radiation

•Loses it when fired

•TL clock set to zero

• Starts to build up again when in use and then buried

•Artificially fired in laboratory to measure light radiation emissions

Obsidian Hydration
 
•Depends on the decay of a substance

•Based on measurement of microscopically thin layer which forms on the surface of Obsidian

•(natural volcanic glass, popular alternative to flint for manufacture of flaked tools)

Layer


•Formed by absorption of water

•Starts as soon as fresh surface is exposed

•But does not form at constant rate and is especially sensitive to changes in temperature

•May weather at different rates in different geological sources

•Can only be considered a relative dating technique
◾ (like dating of bone)

•can be used to check contemporaneity of artefacts from same deposit, as a check for modern forgeries.

http://www.angelfire.com/art/archictecture/arch/dating.htm
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 04, 2014, 02:06:30 am »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 03, 2014, 11:23:11 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 03, 2014, 11:17:43 pm »

http://www.youtube.com/watch??v=XttPuVH4jXc&feature=player_embedded
Coal scientifically proven to form in about a year and many other eye opening scientific truths  :o that point to a planet MUCH younger than evolutionary theory claims.

There are no wild eyed claims here. Everything is documented with laboratory evidence. I particularly enjoyed the discussion of fossil formation velocity as well as dinosaur footprints on coal formations.

The Hydroplate Theory explains the geology of this planet and the volcanic rift seams that go around it like a stitch on a baseball far better than plate tectonics. It also explains the worldwide flood ALL ancient human civilizations talk about in their writings. That said, I do nor believe our planet is only 6,000 years old. I don't know how old it is.


IF you want the truth, LEARN the Hydroplate Theory. IT FITS! 
Quote
Man's mind, stretched by a new idea, never goes back to its original dimensions.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 22, 2014, 10:58:50 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 09, 2014, 09:31:54 pm »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9_o7NGTkJc&feature=player_embedded
This scientist STARTED OUT as an Atheist working for NASA. But EVIDENCE of Creation changed his mind!  ;D
 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 27, 2014, 07:07:00 pm »

Surly,
No, I hadn't read about the Home Depot Hypocrite. What an ARSE HOLE!

I'm sure the pope is shaking in his boots (NOT!).

These 1%ers are delusional to the point of lunacy in the service of predatory profit.

But you know, the bible has always taken pains to show that irrationality of that sort is exactly what results from rejecting God and embracing greed.


Isaiah 57
20
But the wicked are like the tossing sea,
    which cannot rest,
    whose waves cast up mire and mud.

21
“There is no peace,” says my God, “for the wicked.”


Evil behavior doesn't just make people lose all respect for their fellow man; it drives people insane.
Posted by: Surly1
« on: January 06, 2014, 06:32:50 am »

Fascinating thread, with a predictable result.

Very few people bought into a belief system are willing to go where the facts lead when the facts collide with an established, bought-into world view. Little wonder that the Christian mainline churches are sloughing off into irrelevancy. And I say this as an ordained elder in the Presbyterian church.

Am sure you saw this--

Billionaire threatens charity donations if Pope continues support for the poor
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 05, 2014, 05:42:40 pm »

Agelbert Gets spanked by 6 day Creationist Whako with CIRCULAR ILLOGIC!

Agelbert says:

I will make this short because you consistently refuse to argue point by point about Genesis FLAWS due to the fact that Moses was sitting on planet earth when he wrote it. God would NEVER have said those things about the "lamps" in the sky (sun and moon) from His perspective but never mind that.

It's a waste of time to argue with you. My question is, what sort of a conundrum will you find yourself in IF the Earth, forget the rest of what is out there for a moment, is found to be 140,000 years old along with evidence that no evolution ever occurred and all life forms here were created in a series of events after catastrophes like the flood and volcanic eruptions and meteors in different time periods along those 140,000 years?

Will you just pretend it didn't happen? The bible doesn't tell people to brush their teeth but science has taught us that it's a good idea to do so. That proves that TRUTH is the final authority. The bible does NOT have a monopoly on it as you claim. Jesus Christ is NOT the Bible. YET, He IS the TRUTH. He is the cornerstone, not the old testament. The bible has a purpose but you pretend no other authority is valid if it contradicts the idea that the sun stood still for an hour or more? That's just silly.

And that is just one example. I am a 'whatever the age of earth non-evolutionary hard science comes up with' Christian. Instead of addressing issues point by point, you point to "we already answered that" type NON answers or worse, accuse us of being apostates or atheists! May God have mercy on your willful rejection of empirical evidence and reveal to you that the legalistic, pharisaic path you or on is a stumbling block to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't believe you will print this but if you do, thank you.

Quote
Gary Bates responds

I will publish your comments on this occasion so that readers can see for themselves the type of unbiblical arguments that you continually send to our site. It appears that you must have some sort of special revelation that God has not seen fit to also inform us about, moreover, stuff that also contradicts what is written in His Word.

So, respectfully,  with such a view it would be actually impossible to have a reasonable debate with you because your authority is just whatever you decide to come up with. As such, we would be arguing past each other.

 However, be aware that because of your insults  and condemning attitude  at the end, this will be the last comment to be posted by you on creation.com.  :icon_mrgreen:  BTW we are not obliged to answer every email point by point so your emotional manipulation with not gain any traction here. At the time of writing we have over 9,500 free articles on our site as a service to readers that can also deal with your unbiblical claims.

The onus is upon you.


For example, you should probably deal with the reasoning in articles like Did God create over billions of years?. The only reason you are trying to argue for long periods of time is because of secular science, but that shouldn't be surprising given your low view of Scripture.

Agelbert NOTE: Wasn't that fascinating? Notice how he turned the 140,000 year question into billions of years and branded science based teeth brushing as a LOW OPINION OF SCRIPTURE. These guys are a riot! They break the "stuffed shirt" meter readings! Knocking down their arguments is like shooting fish in a barrel. That's why they huff and puff and hem and haw about Bible = AUTHORITY = 100% TRUTH . It's a game of pretense to adhere to truth UNTIL Moses or some other imaginative fellow in the bible decides the moon and the sun are both "lamps" because "God" told him so.   



http://creation.com/old-earth-no-answer

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 09, 2013, 09:47:40 pm »

The stuffed shirt legalists respond with standard boiler plate. It is fascinating in a sick sort of way to see these paragons of rigidity and closed mindedness ASSUME that I am an Atheist because I told them that baloney about the sun and moon being two lamps made on the same day proves that verse is inaccurate because the moon is NOT a light source (the FOURTH day, no less! The third day all those plants, trees and foliage grew without the sun! LOL!).

If their comment space wasn't so limited, I would have explained that because God is everywhere, He is certainly not going to perceive the sun and the moon as a couple of LAMPS. Only Moses, sitting on planet Earth, could get that FALSE impression and write it down as if God told him to.

I'm certain God guided Moses but not in the writing of Genesis. That's just an allegory the legalists want to cling to in order to avoid REAL issues like Loving thy Neighbor and how the allegedly "Christian" Church has turned its back on the Commandment Jesus Christ made.

They **** and moan about how Darwin took everybody for a sucker but fail to notice the established, super rigid and NON CHRISTIAN behavior of mainline Christian Churches of Darwin's epoch paved the way for most people to believe a pseudo scientific charlatan. People SAW the hypocrisy of the wealth worshipping church and were easily swayed to the evolutionary tom foolery. 

Enjoy the uptight response making ME out to be the bad guy.  ;)

Quote
Your original comment:
 I also am a Christian and understand the difference between an assumption and Faith. You are clearly confusing the two. Yes, if you BELIEVE something, it follows that you will SUSEQUENTLY ASSUME it is true, but you are still left in exactly the same circular logic position as anyone claiming revelation from God.

 No the bible does NOT HAVE 100% ACCURACY.The moon (see Genesis) is not now, or ever was, a LAMP. The MOON produces NO LIGHT, it reflects solar light, period. And don't try to go to Hebrew for your own interpretation of the word "lamp". The sun IS a lamp, and it is ridiculous to put the sun and the moon in the same category unless you think (erroneously as Moses did) that they were both about the same size.
 Yes, I know you are going to bring up Exodus and the 6 day week, For what it's worth, Galatians makes it CLEAR that Exodus and the LAW was a response to a stiff necked, disobedient and rebellious people; it was given to PROVE TO MAN that he was incapable of keeping the LAW. Yet you seek to glorify the Law and the tradition of the six day week and the Sabbath day of rest as confirmation of Genesis days. You have it exactly backwards. The 6 day week and Sabbath was made for man, not because God was confirming Genesis. The rigidness of your position is testament to the Procrustean Bed logic you refuse to let go off.
 I can see you questioning some new dating method if it proves we have been here 8 thousand, four hundred and 24 years because it doesn't jive with your 6,000 interpretation.

 You are on as slippery slope as the evolutionists. They are wrong but you are wrong as well to fall into your rigid legalistic, tradition celebrating view of Christianity that SATAN so LOVES and the Apostle Paul clearly warned against in Galatians.

 I REBUKE YOU!


I am not publishing your comment because it is not on the topic of the article.

 I started to write a detailed response to your claims, but I decided against it. The thing that disturbs me about your message is that you claim to be a Christian, but you sound like an atheist. I don't know if you're lying about being a Christian, or whether you simply didn't think very well about your message.

 I would love to hear where you think there is legalism on our site. If you read articles like the ones I'm going to put below, you'll see that creation is not just in Genesis and in the Ten Commandments, but literally woven into the fabric of Scripture.

 http://creation.com/genesis-new-testament
 http://creation.com/genesis-ot
 http://creation.com/yahweh-creator-god-israel

 Sincerely,

 Lita Cosner
 

Su-u-u-re you would "love to hear"  from me.   

Not ONE WORD about Galatians and the law as to legalism. Not ONE WORD about the PURPOSE of the LAW (to prove it was impossible to keep it). No, just that I am supposedly an atheist because I deny the accuracy of Genesis. What an illogical and hysterical straw grasping NON-response.

None so blind as those who refuse to THINK, let alone see!
 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 08, 2013, 07:13:56 pm »

Quote
Thank you for your comment (see below) about the article on creation.com titled Do you really believe God?.

 Your objections are answered in detail on creation.com, which you could find by using the search engine. I suggest you read the following (but there is much more if you are still not convinced):
How could the days be literal before the sun was created? and Six days: really?.

 But God's personal commentary on the creation week in Exodus 20 should have been sufficient for you.

 Kind regards,
 Don Batten

This guy above is STUCK on Exodus. It's typical of rigid minded legalistic tradition worshippers tha Jesus Christ and, later on, the Apostle Paul, railed against. I sent the last message below today to give them a bit of heartburn. ;D Those silly stuffed shirts go bonkers when the written words in the bible are questioned. It seems they are happy with ANY dating method that shows a 6,000 year old earth (so far they haven't found one. LOL!) but would immediately reject one that produced any greater length. That's as agenda laced as the evolutionist true believers they correctly criticize. Legalism is an old Luciferian trick. It makes the "in group" look like idiots and undermines the entire purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in regard to human relations (the Golden Rule) by harping on ridiculous, unfollowable rules.

SO-o-o-o, I let them have it when they answered someone who stated, CORRECTLY, that, as a Christian, he had to accept the validity of Islam's words of Mohammed claiming he had revelation from God too. They claimed he could ASSUME the bible was the INERRANT WORD OF GOD and therefore ISLAM and Mohammed are making the stuff up! 



I also am a Christian and understand the difference between an assumption and Faith. You are clearly confusing the two. Yes, if you BELIEVE something, it follows that you will SUSEQUENTLY ASSUME it is true, but you are still left in exactly the same circular logic position as anyone claiming revelation from God.

No the bible does NOT HAVE 100% ACCURACY.The moon (see Genesis) is not now, or ever was, a LAMP. The MOON produces NO LIGHT, it reflects solar light, period. And don't try to go to Hebrew for your own interpretation of the word "lamp". The sun IS a lamp, and it is ridiculous to put the sun and the moon in the same category unless you think (erroneously as Moses did) that they were both about the same size.
Yes, I know you are going to bring up Exodus and the 6 day week, For what it's worth, Galatians makes it CLEAR that Exodus and the LAW was a response to a stiff necked, disobedient and rebellious people; it was given to PROVE TO MAN that he was incapable of keeping the LAW. Yet you seek to glorify the Law and the tradition of the six day week and the Sabbath day of rest as confirmation of Genesis days. You have it exactly backwards. The 6 day week and Sabbath was made for man, not because God was confirming Genesis. The rigidness of your position is testament to the Procrustean Bed logic you refuse to let go of. 

I can see you questioning some new dating method if it proves we have been here 8 thousand, four hundred and 24 years because it doesn't jive with your 6,000 year interpretation.

You are on as slippery slope as the evolutionists. They are wrong but you are wrong as well to fall into your rigid legalistic, tradition celebrating view of Christianity that SATAN so LOVES and the Apostle Paul clearly warned against in Galatians.

I REBUKE YOU!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 25, 2013, 10:42:35 pm »

Thank you for posting my comment. Dr. Jonathan's reply evaded the answer by appealing to the interpretation that Genesis is literal and other portions of the Scripture are not. Like typology and Dispensationalism, that too is more interpretation references used as authority to cherry pick what is literal and what is not.

Dr. Jonathan's claim that Peter was not thinking about creation is an interpretation, not a fact.

Furthermore his fixation on the Exodus passage as giving weight and credence to the Genesis "day" length (work six days and rest on the Sabbath) lacks Scriptural weight. Why? As the Apostle Paul makes quite clear in Galatians, the entire purpose of the giving of the Law was to expose the futility of attempting to obey it. The Ten Commandments and all the multiple laws and regulations in Leviticus and Deuteronomy as well as Exodus are an ADJUSTMENT by God for man's stubborn and stiff necked nature,  certainly not a period to look upon with admiration and affirmation of the Genesis 6 "day" literal interpretation. Exodus marks the acts of a graceful God and a willful and disobedient people. Only when Christ finally came and told them in no uncertain terms that the bottom line is Loving Your Neighbor As Yourself and dying for our sins were we out of danger of perdition.

I could make a case for arguing that since we are urged to "pray without ceasing" and to evangelize "in season and out of it" that the traditions and rigidity associated with Jewish laws and customs are, like the path to hell, covered with good intentions but not a source of spiritual growth.  ;D I won't because only God can do anything at all 24 hours a day.

The Holy Spirit knows this so nobody should attempt to put a guilt trip on Christians because they don't literally "pray without ceasing". Others might jump in and interpret that phrase to mean being in a state of grace. But then we are back at the interpretation minefield that is often the Devil's workshop.

Back to God, the Creator of this universe and time also. What do you suppose He was doing between those Genesis "days"? Or do you believe one 12 hour "day" was followed by the next one with no "watch" or "night".  ???

Of course Almighty God knew the length of a day since He is the Creator of time as well as space. But why doesn't Genesis address what God did each night? He doesn't sleep or need to sleep. The "morning and evening" are defining a 12 hour DAY. That is not really debatable.

It is clear in Genesis that, even though there was no light at all, God Created nothing at all in the dark. Why? Because He did everything between the "morning and evening", period. And yet we know darkness was upon the earth until the fourth "day".  :o How do we "know" that?  ;D

Dr. Jonathan does not wish to discuss the lamps in the sky called the sun and moon that were placed there to divide the day from the night. That is the key to what the length of a day is as is reaffirmed by Jesus with his "12 hour" comment.

You have written correctly that the early church had no doubts about the literal length of the days of creation. The Apostle Peter had no doubts. When he urged patience with his comparison of a day to a thousand years, he had no knowledge of the 93 million miles we are from the sun, the fact that light takes about 9 minutes to get here from the sun and such other unnecessary knowledge required to evangelize and grow the Christian Church. The Holy Spirit allowed that bit of prose about a day and one thousand years to remain there because it is true, not something to be discarded because of the Procrustean Bed arbitrary 6 literal days of Creation.

Furthermore, since a 24 hour "day" is actually composed of the 12 hour day and the 12 hour "watch" or "night" or whatever one wishers to call that period when the main lamp (the sun) isn't visible, you must then ask, if you are literally interpreting Genesis, if those first six days were 12 hour "days" or 24 hour "days".

Quote
Genesis 1:4-5
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So there is a 12 hour day (morning and evening) for the first "day", there is light and darkness in the universe, but not upon the earth. Why do I say this?
Because it isn't until some Genesis "days" later that God actually sets lamps in the sky to divide the day from the night.
Quote
Genesis 1:14-15
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

That means, necessarily, that WASN'T SO prior to the fourth day. There was LIGHT, but not upon the earth, until the fourth day.

Quote
Genesis 1:16-19
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The sun ("the greater light") did not divide the light from the darkness upon the earth until the fourth day.

Consequently, the expression, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." cannot be taken literally as to actual length of that "morning and evening"..

However, we must take literally the facts of the fourth day because, to this day, the sun does divide the light from the darkness. That is not debatable.

There is more that indicates those first three "days" in particular, were quite lengthy, to put it mildly.
The third "day" is a perfect example.
Quote
Genesis 1:12-13
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

The plant life Created on the third "day" grew, including the trees, to produce fruit all over the earth during a period when there was no sunlight upon the earth. Plant life, even before the mankind's fall from disobedience in the Garden of Eden, was, and still is, photosynthetic.

Again, God could certainly have miraculously accomplished all the above in a 12 hour "day" without the existence of the sun, but God's plan for plant growth argues that the "day" (It is true that the Hebrew word yom, translated "day," can have a variety of meanings. By far its most common is a literal day, but it can mean "age." http://www.icr.org/article/3228/ ) is more of an "age" (as in at least a thousand years when some dim light source other than the sun nourished the plant life) than a 12 or 24 hour day.

Your concern with the "slippery slope" of Christians reinterpreting the Scripture in terms of trying to fit the facts to the evolutionary Procrustean Bed is quite valid and I support your efforts to enlighten people as to the folly of the pseudo scientific claim that we are products of a random universe.

However, by fixating on the words of Moses when God inspired him to write Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch as to the length of those first 6 "days", you are forced to de-emphasize Holy Spirit Inspired Scripture from the New Testament like that of the Apostle Peter. That's why I am being such a pest about your Procrustean Bed logic.  ;D That's a slippery slope too.  ;)

Your concern that a many thousand year interpretation of the Genesis Days leads to a loss of Faith is not warranted. Already you have made great strides in exposing the massive "scientific" dating technique errors and inaccuracies and how the dates are cherry picked to defend the multi-million year evolutionists' view of our existence.

I am concerned that if you actually run into some dating technique that indicates we are, say, 14,527 years, 2 hours and 47 minutes old on a given date due its established inerrancy in objects up to 6,000 years old, you will reject the data just as the evolutionists reject C-14 in diamonds and coal. Unlike the evolution supporting pseudo scientists, who have a Godless agenda and will lie and twist the facts to support it, Christians must follow the truth, period.

Your Brother in Christ,

A. G. Gelbert
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 25, 2013, 10:10:06 pm »


Jonathan Sarfati responds

But you can't derive from God's word anything other than that He created about 6,000 years ago. Instead you use fallible ‘dating’ methods to override the clear     teachings.

It's not ‘my’ interpretation that Peter is using a simile; it's the grammatical-historical or originalist interpretation of the text.

Also, as explained, Peter did not have creation week in view. Exodus 20:8–11 did,  and there is no doubt that the creation days were the same length as that of the working week. Indeed, why not instead use Jesus' words “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (John 11:9) because at least this is the same kind of day as in Genesis 1:5.
 

Also note that “to this day” is yet another contrast with the Creation Days, which had both evening + morning and a number. 

http://creation.com/gods-days
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 24, 2013, 11:38:40 pm »

2 Peter 3:8—‘one day is like a thousand years’
by Jonathan Sarfati

Quote
This is the pre-publication version which was subsequently revised to appear in Creation 31(4):16.
Question: Doesn’t 2 Peter 3:8 indicate that the days of creation might not be literal, but thousands of years long?

Answer: 2 Peter 3:8–9 reads:
‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

The first thing to note that the context has nothing to do with the days of creation.  Also, it is not defining a day because it doesn’t say ‘a day is a thousand years’. The correct understanding is derived from the context  ???—the Apostle Peter’s readers should not lose heart because God seems slow at fulfilling His promises because He is patient, and also because He is not bound by time as we are.

The text says ‘one day is like [or as] a thousand years’—the word ‘like’ (or ‘as’) shows that it is a figure of speech, called a simile, to teach that God is outside of time (because He is the Creator of time itself). In fact, the figure of speech is so effective in its intended aim precisely because the day is literal and contrasts so vividly with 1000 years—to the eternal Creator of time, a short period of time and a long period of time may as well be the same. 

The fact that the passage is actually contrasting a short and long period can be shown by the fact that Peter is quoting Psalm 90:4 (Peter’s statement ‘do not forget’ implies that his readers were expected to recall something, and this passage has this very teaching). This reads:

‘For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.’
This is synonymous parallelism,  ::) where a long period of a thousand years is contrasted with two short periods: a day, and a night watch. But those who try to use this verse  to teach that the days of Genesis might be 1000 years long forget the additional part in bold. For if they were consistent, they would have to say that a watch in the night here also means 1000 years. It’s difficult to imagine that a Psalmist (Psalm 63:6) is thinking on his bed for thousands of years or that his eyes stay open for thousands of years (Psalm 119:148).   :P

The immediate context of the Psalm is the frailty of mere mortal man in comparison to God. This verse amplifies the teaching, saying that no matter how long a time interval is from man’s time-bound perspective, it’s like a twinkling of an eye from God’s eternal perspective.

In any case, the meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1 is defined by the context there—the Hebrew word for day, yôm יום , is used with the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’, and the days are numbered (first day, second day, etc.). Whenever yôm is used in such a context, it is always an ordinary day, never a long period of time. The meaning of the days of creation as ordinary days is also affirmed by Exodus 20:8–11, where God told the Israelites to work for six days and rest on the seventh because God had made all things in six days and rested on the seventh. 

For more information, see other articles in Q&A: Genesis under ‘Days of Creation’.
(Available in Russian)
Related Articles
Distant starlight and the days of Genesis 1
Further Reading
Creation at the academy
Creation and Change" href="/book-review-creation-and-change" abp="524"Book review: Creation and Change
http://creation.com/2-peter-38-one-day-is-like-a-thousand-years

Agelbert Comment:

I am a Christian. I disagree with your 6 literal day interpretation of Creation.

I agree with 2 Peter 3:8–9. I realize Peter was urging patience but that doesn't mean he had forgotten what the length of a 24 hour day is or the tremendous difference with one thousand years.

I read your article by Jonathan Sarfati. His claim that Peter's words were out of context in regard to Creation, "The first thing to note that the context has nothing to do with the days of creation." is an interpretation known as  Procrustean Bed logic. When a Scripture passage has the expression, "To this Day", you, of course, are not talking about the year 2013 in regard to whatever was being discussed, are you?

Jonathan wants to take the words of Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit about Creation, literally but refuses to do so for Peter's words, inspired by the same Holy Spirit,  because "as" is a simile? I'm sorry, that is an interpretation that I cannot agree with.

I agree, as a Christian, that God Created us intact, there is no evolution and we were Created less than a few hundred thousand years ago. I believe this because of all the accurate scientific data you have provided about radioisotope dating techniques.

That said, the radiocarbon-14 dating of Egyptian mummies gives us a pretty accurate metric for gaging and confirming the accuracy of C-14 dating. All the other dating methods look severely flawed. But the ice man from the alps is about 6,000 years old and I really think we were around for quite a while before that.

I think you should go where the science leads you because, after all, God is the author of all truth and all science. Don't box yourself into a Procrustean Bed. You do not need a six literal day interpretation of Creation to confirm the inerrancy of God's word.


+-Recent Topics

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 06:37:25 pm

Welcome! by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 04:48:34 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 04:36:28 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 02:45:34 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 01:57:36 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 01:39:07 pm

🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 🐍 Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus modus operandi by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 01:27:28 pm

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 01:01:07 pm

Money by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 12:37:53 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 12:08:54 pm